I get the feeling you're missing the starting point: you've attributed in your OP a seemingly very shallow and not-scripturally-well-defended position to St. John of Damascus, and then "refuted" it, going so far as to quote St. John's name in the title of the thread in order to demonstrate your mastery over his logic. And yet, judging by your argument, "proofs," and conclusions, you haven't actually read that much of St. John's work, and yet have taken the time to, in effect, smear him by claiming that he weakly espoused heresy in his support of iconography.

There are plenty of folks who will engage you on the Scriptural, patristic, conciliar, and traditional roots and proofs for the permissible existence of iconography in Christian worship, drawing on archeological evidence (the existence of iconography in Christian worship from the 1st century, and other Jewish iconographic depictions that pre-date that), scriptural and patristic evidence (the 7th Ecumenical Council liked using scripture, you know); however, your argument against St. John seems like a childish rant when you're not willing to read all of what he says on the matter, and insist on continuing a line of argumentation from a faulty starting point.

All, Father? I've yet to seen proof that he has read any of St. John.

I've opened a thread addressing the teachings of Perssonism (misspellt: I apologize. Can a mod fix that in the title?) on icons. Our heresiarch has yet to respond to his "arguments" there. I'll address his rantings against St. John when we see some proof that he has actually read something of what he is criticizing.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

As we have seen the human flesh of the Son, Gods' transcendent Deity remained transcendent:

Christ is no mere "avatar" remote controlled from heaven. Christ is the second person of the Trinity. Christ is God, and we have seen him. The Father remains unseen, but we have still seen God.

If depicting Christ is tearing Divinity from humanity and falling into nestorianism, then all who saw Christ were nestorians (I will stand or fall together with them). I fail to understand the difference between seeing Christ and depicting Christ.

EDIT: Mayby I should also read this essay, written by Saint John of Damascus, that you all talk about. Thank you for the link LBK.

The OO nonchalcedonians also embrace Icons and so according to his logic this will make them Nestorians too!

The truth is, his argument is a Nestorian one, he just doesn't know it yet. I wonder if he is able to call our blessed Mother Theotokos?

His argument against Icons and the 7th council would have to be against the 3rd council as well.

ICXC NIKA

Incorrect. It is elementary icons are inspiring heresy because:

1)If icons image the Incarnate flesh only, they are tearing His human nature from the divine, Nestorian.2)If icons image the whole Christ, then they confuse the two natures in the one icon, Monophysite.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I get the feeling you're missing the starting point: you've attributed in your OP a seemingly very shallow and not-scripturally-well-defended position to St. John of Damascus, and then "refuted" it, going so far as to quote St. John's name in the title of the thread in order to demonstrate your mastery over his logic. And yet, judging by your argument, "proofs," and conclusions, you haven't actually read that much of St. John's work, and yet have taken the time to, in effect, smear him by claiming that he weakly espoused heresy in his support of iconography.

There are plenty of folks who will engage you on the Scriptural, patristic, conciliar, and traditional roots and proofs for the permissible existence of iconography in Christian worship, drawing on archeological evidence (the existence of iconography in Christian worship from the 1st century, and other Jewish iconographic depictions that pre-date that), scriptural and patristic evidence (the 7th Ecumenical Council liked using scripture, you know); however, your argument against St. John seems like a childish rant when you're not willing to read all of what he says on the matter, and insist on continuing a line of argumentation from a faulty starting point.

Back up your claims, with proof.

Calling me an idiot doesn't make it so.

In fact, this thread indicates quite the opposite.

But hope springs eternal (hence all the beauty salons in the land): someone may yet treat my argument, after they have tired insulting me.

I consider it all joy, in case you are wondering.

« Last Edit: August 03, 2010, 04:02:47 PM by Alfred Persson »

Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)

Folks, of what use is continuing this thread? His clearly stated intention is to engage in a win-lose game of some sort. Any playing at all is a loss, IMO. Silence is the only appropriate response. But now I violate my own counsel. Bye-bye.

I get the feeling you're missing the starting point: you've attributed in your OP a seemingly very shallow and not-scripturally-well-defended position to St. John of Damascus, and then "refuted" it, going so far as to quote St. John's name in the title of the thread in order to demonstrate your mastery over his logic. And yet, judging by your argument, "proofs," and conclusions, you haven't actually read that much of St. John's work, and yet have taken the time to, in effect, smear him by claiming that he weakly espoused heresy in his support of iconography.

There are plenty of folks who will engage you on the Scriptural, patristic, conciliar, and traditional roots and proofs for the permissible existence of iconography in Christian worship, drawing on archeological evidence (the existence of iconography in Christian worship from the 1st century, and other Jewish iconographic depictions that pre-date that), scriptural and patristic evidence (the 7th Ecumenical Council liked using scripture, you know); however, your argument against St. John seems like a childish rant when you're not willing to read all of what he says on the matter, and insist on continuing a line of argumentation from a faulty starting point.

Back up your claims, with proof.

Calling me an idiot doesn't make it so.

In fact, this thread indicates quite the opposite.

But hope springs eternal, someone may yet treat my argument, after they have tired insulting me.

Prosopon! Look it up! Why are you wasting our time like this? Where is your shame? What you are doing here is wrong. Clearly, you want some kind Judaistical "proof"; it's been given. You wanted proof about St. Damascene's position; you got it. You wanted the theological support of icons; you got it. Your response: simple obstinancy. You don't even respond to your own critics.

But what I really can't figure out is why you are here hurling the anathemas of Councils at us when it's pretty clear that you don't even believe in Councils!

You are misguided and playing games, and I for one would not object if you were banned.

That's it for me. I'm finished with this clown.

Even though Alfred Persson has made his trolling behavior rather obvious, this post wherein you abuse Mr. Perssons and call him a clown is well beyond inappropriate. We do not tolerate such personal attacks on this forum. Since you've already been warned about this and have shown no real attempt to mellow your bellicose posting style, your warning will last for 40 days to give you some time to think about how you relate to people on this forum in general. Be aware also that continued attacks on other posters will result in stiffer penalties, to include post moderation, muting, or banning. If you think this unfair, please feel free to appeal my decision via private message to Veniamin or to Fr. Chris.

Alfread Pearson, you say that icons are Nestorian. Can you please answer yes or no to the following questions?

A photo is similar to a painting. Yes/no?Photos are taken using light sensitive sensors. Yes/no?Eyes are composed of light sensitive sensors. Yes/no?Looking at someone creates an image of the person they are beholding within their eyes. Yes/no?The first nestorian was Virgin Mary, because she looked at her own child. Yes/no?

If icons are nestorian then I claim that Virgin Mary was the first nestorian.

Alfread Pearson, you say that icons are Nestorian. Can you please answer yes or no to the following questions?

A photo is similar to a painting. Yes/no?Photos are taken using light sensitive sensors. Yes/no?Eyes are composed of light sensitive sensors. Yes/no?Looking at someone creates an image of the person they are beholding within their eyes. Yes/no?The first nestorian was Virgin Mary, because she looked at her own child. Yes/no?

If icons are nestorian then I claim that Virgin Mary was the first nestorian.

Heavy stuff!

Alfred, an idol, whether it be a statue, a painting, a celebrity, or a tree said to have spiritual powers, does not exist in and of itself as an idol. It is made into an idol by those who idolize it. An icon can be made into an idol, but you will have to prove that we confuse an image of Christ with His Person. This you are incapable of doing, since in St. John of Damascus at least, you will find no evidence for this.

Your arguments and your method of argument betrays you as someone who believes he personally has all the answers. We, however, are not our own instructors, but have the Holy Fathers for our teachers and the Church for our mother. If you decide you are tired of being alone with your own counsel, you are welcome to join us, but first you will have to humble yourself.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

Now, to the actual task at hand- the Deuteronomy 4:15 passage. I will bold the gaping hole in your logic. "And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIKWN), the likeness of male or female,-LXX, Brenton"

By the way, the OSB, which you apparently own since you quoted it for your later texts renders this into a more modern grammatical structure as this: "So be careful to guard your souls, for you saw no form when the Lord spoke to you at Horeb on the mountain from the midst of the fire. 16 Do not act lawlessly and make for yourselves a carved form of any image; the likeness of male or female" It seems that you merely selected a translation that would appear to back your argument up

No, I want it clear the Septuagint forbids every kind of (EIKWN)

And you evaded my points:

1)John's exegesis of De 4:15f is impossible as God expressly rules out any kind of male human icon as imaging His similitude.

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIKWN), the likeness of male or female,-LXX, Brenton

2)Moreover separating Transcendent Deity from His Flesh is Nestorianism. Both natures are united indivisibly in the One Person of the Eternal Son.

3)It is evident from all the other God approved images in the Temple, Ark, etc, that God has no problem with images at all....ONLY those that render the Transcendent Infinite God finite like His creatures. That violates the Holiness of God, His separateness from all creation.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I get the feeling you're missing the starting point: you've attributed in your OP a seemingly very shallow and not-scripturally-well-defended position to St. John of Damascus, and then "refuted" it, going so far as to quote St. John's name in the title of the thread in order to demonstrate your mastery over his logic. And yet, judging by your argument, "proofs," and conclusions, you haven't actually read that much of St. John's work, and yet have taken the time to, in effect, smear him by claiming that he weakly espoused heresy in his support of iconography.

There are plenty of folks who will engage you on the Scriptural, patristic, conciliar, and traditional roots and proofs for the permissible existence of iconography in Christian worship, drawing on archeological evidence (the existence of iconography in Christian worship from the 1st century, and other Jewish iconographic depictions that pre-date that), scriptural and patristic evidence (the 7th Ecumenical Council liked using scripture, you know); however, your argument against St. John seems like a childish rant when you're not willing to read all of what he says on the matter, and insist on continuing a line of argumentation from a faulty starting point.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I haven't made a claim - you have, and have done so on a bed of quicksand rather than rock. Your argument is akin to walking into a Physics symposium and claiming that gravity doesn't exist because Newton didn't own a properly calibrated scale.

But hope springs eternal (hence all the beauty salons in the land): someone may yet treat my argument, after they have tired insulting me.

I consider it all joy, in case you are wondering.

As far as I can tell, no one has insulted you - just pointed out that your argument begins from a flawed starting position, which thus renders it indefensible (making any debate on it unnecessary). You insist that we engage in a dialogue on your points - but if your points have no direction or sharpness, then they're dull edges instead, and we have no point to engage. Give us a sharpened point, that we may engage it.

Alfread Pearson, you say that icons are Nestorian. Can you please answer yes or no to the following questions?

A photo is similar to a painting. Yes/no?Photos are taken using light sensitive sensors. Yes/no?Eyes are composed of light sensitive sensors. Yes/no?Looking at someone creates an image of the person they are beholding within their eyes. Yes/no?The first nestorian was Virgin Mary, because she looked at her own child. Yes/no?

If icons are nestorian then I claim that Virgin Mary was the first nestorian.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I get the feeling you're missing the starting point: you've attributed in your OP a seemingly very shallow and not-scripturally-well-defended position to St. John of Damascus, and then "refuted" it, going so far as to quote St. John's name in the title of the thread in order to demonstrate your mastery over his logic. And yet, judging by your argument, "proofs," and conclusions, you haven't actually read that much of St. John's work, and yet have taken the time to, in effect, smear him by claiming that he weakly espoused heresy in his support of iconography.

There are plenty of folks who will engage you on the Scriptural, patristic, conciliar, and traditional roots and proofs for the permissible existence of iconography in Christian worship, drawing on archeological evidence (the existence of iconography in Christian worship from the 1st century, and other Jewish iconographic depictions that pre-date that), scriptural and patristic evidence (the 7th Ecumenical Council liked using scripture, you know); however, your argument against St. John seems like a childish rant when you're not willing to read all of what he says on the matter, and insist on continuing a line of argumentation from a faulty starting point.

I get the feeling my argument is irrefutable.

Everyone changes the subject to me.

John of Damascus didn't treat others that way, he tried to prove the argument was incorrect.

Of course he failed.

Of course all of you will fail also.

I am patient...eventually you will tire of me, and take interest in the argument, then you are toast.

« Last Edit: August 05, 2010, 04:49:06 PM by Fr. George »

Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)

John's exegesis of De 4:15f is impossible. God expressly rules out any kind of male human icon as imaging His similitude.

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIKWN), the likeness of male or female,-LXX, Brenton

Alfred:

You want a reasoned argument: then tell us when were you at Mt. Choreb? And when did you hear the Lord speak out of that Mountain? And when did you see the Holy Fire?

John

« Last Edit: August 03, 2010, 07:28:49 PM by zoarthegleaner »

Logged

Courteous is my name,and I have always aimed to live up to it.Grace is also my name,but when things go wrongits Courteous whom I blame;but its Grace who sees me through it.

I get the feeling you're missing the starting point: you've attributed in your OP a seemingly very shallow and not-scripturally-well-defended position to St. John of Damascus, and then "refuted" it, going so far as to quote St. John's name in the title of the thread in order to demonstrate your mastery over his logic. And yet, judging by your argument, "proofs," and conclusions, you haven't actually read that much of St. John's work, and yet have taken the time to, in effect, smear him by claiming that he weakly espoused heresy in his support of iconography.

There are plenty of folks who will engage you on the Scriptural, patristic, conciliar, and traditional roots and proofs for the permissible existence of iconography in Christian worship, drawing on archeological evidence (the existence of iconography in Christian worship from the 1st century, and other Jewish iconographic depictions that pre-date that), scriptural and patristic evidence (the 7th Ecumenical Council liked using scripture, you know); however, your argument against St. John seems like a childish rant when you're not willing to read all of what he says on the matter, and insist on continuing a line of argumentation from a faulty starting point.

I get the feeling my argument is irrefutable.

Everyone changes the subject to me.

John D didn't treat others that way, he tried to prove the argument was incorrect.

Of course he failed.

Of course all of you will fail also.

I am patient...eventually you will tire of me, and take interest in the argument, then you are toast.

Any time you open a Bible, you are opening a collection of Orthodox Catholic books. The Orthodox Catholic Church collected, edited, and canonized the books of the Bible. It is this Church, which published the Bible, which has the authority to interpret the Bible.

You do not belong to this Church. You are bringing ideas foreign to the Church of God. You might as well be a Mormon or a Jehovah's Witness. In that you all reject the Orthodox Catholic Church, there is no difference between you.

Since you reject the teachings of the Orthodox Catholic Church, it makes no sense for you to read the Bible or consider it authoritative. It is completely absurd to say, "Your croziers are bosh, your candles are bosh, your statues and relics and all the rest of it are bosh, but your book is holy!"

In the words of Chesterton, "To say to the priests, 'Your statues and scrolls are condemned by our common sense,' is sensible. To say, 'Your statues are condemned by your scrolls, and we are going to worship one part of your procession and wreck the rest,” is not sensible from any standpoint, least of all that of the man in the street."

I get the feeling you're missing the starting point: you've attributed in your OP a seemingly very shallow and not-scripturally-well-defended position to St. John of Damascus, and then "refuted" it, going so far as to quote St. John's name in the title of the thread in order to demonstrate your mastery over his logic. And yet, judging by your argument, "proofs," and conclusions, you haven't actually read that much of St. John's work, and yet have taken the time to, in effect, smear him by claiming that he weakly espoused heresy in his support of iconography.

There are plenty of folks who will engage you on the Scriptural, patristic, conciliar, and traditional roots and proofs for the permissible existence of iconography in Christian worship, drawing on archeological evidence (the existence of iconography in Christian worship from the 1st century, and other Jewish iconographic depictions that pre-date that), scriptural and patristic evidence (the 7th Ecumenical Council liked using scripture, you know); however, your argument against St. John seems like a childish rant when you're not willing to read all of what he says on the matter, and insist on continuing a line of argumentation from a faulty starting point.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

This may be a silly question, but here goes: if no one responds to the OP's satisfaction, what's the worst that could happen?

In other words, why bother with this at all? He doesn't really seem interested in a serious discussion.

If this was CAF, his posts could be scrubbed clean, where they may never lead others astray, besides polluting the internet. But since OC.net doesn't do that sort a thing (a policy I support. Pure gold fears no fire), a word or too is appropriate. He seems to have run out of his repetoire.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

You want I step into a "gauntlet". Kindly tell them all "Keep holding your breath, he will be here any minute!"

ha ha!

God says "they saw no similitude" , they cannot make an ICON in the likeness of a human male etc. Therefore human flesh is not God's similitude, they have seen that.

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIKWN), the likeness of male or female,-LXX, Brenton

John of Damascus says Jesus incarnate body is the similitude of God, we can make an icon of Him, this therefore does not violate Deu 4:15f.

As Deu does not allow icons of God in human flesh, the only way an icon of Jesus body does not violate Deut 4:15 is if:

1)The icon's prototype is not God.2)The icon is not imaging human flesh.

That is my First argument.

Here is the Second:

1)If icons image the Incarnate flesh only, they are tearing His human nature from the divine, Nestorian.2)If icons image the whole Christ, then they confuse the two natures in the one icon, Monophysite.

Now you can decry my pedigree, education, religion, ect, but until you actually treat my argument, nothing you gents say is relevant.

If any reading this suddenly realize how foolish icons are and are wondering what to do next...

Repent of idolatry and any mysticism with it and cry out to the LORD Jesus Christ, "save me a sinner, I beg you", publicly confess you believe He is LORD risen from the dead," for it is written:

9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Rom 10:9-10 NKJ)

God does not lie, do that, and you are saved. He will guide you what to do next.

I recall obeying that myself, and haven't looked back at my former life wanting anything, these 30+ years Jesus has always been with me, never forsaking me. And He will do the same for you, but you must repent, and confess He is LORD in public, before the eyes of angels and men.

« Last Edit: August 03, 2010, 11:48:55 PM by Alfred Persson »

Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)

As we have seen the human flesh of the Son, Gods' transcendent Deity remained transcendent:

Christ is no mere "avatar" remote controlled from heaven. Christ is the second person of the Trinity. Christ is God, and we have seen him. The Father remains unseen, but we have still seen God.

If depicting Christ is tearing Divinity from humanity and falling into nestorianism, then all who saw Christ were nestorians (I will stand or fall together with them). I fail to understand the difference between seeing Christ and depicting Christ.

EDIT: Mayby I should also read this essay, written by Saint John of Damascus, that you all talk about. Thank you for the link LBK.

The OO nonchalcedonians also embrace Icons and so according to his logic this will make them Nestorians too!

The truth is, his argument is a Nestorian one, he just doesn't know it yet. I wonder if he is able to call our blessed Mother Theotokos?

His argument against Icons and the 7th council would have to be against the 3rd council as well.

ICXC NIKA

Incorrect. It is elementary icons are inspiring heresy because:

1)If icons image the Incarnate flesh only, they are tearing His human nature from the divine, Nestorian.

What was the position of the Iconophiles? Do you know? Alot of people are trying to be nice to you by telling you to read some more.

Why do you ignore them?

Quote

2)If icons image the whole Christ, then they confuse the two natures in the one icon, Monophysite.

Why do you keep ignoring the plee of others? They are trying to tell you nicely that you don't know what you're talking about.

It's one Person in Two Natures as well as of Two Natures, not the two natures making the one person.

Icons image the whole Person in the same way that our blessed Mother is the Mother of the whole Person.

We are not confusing natures by calling our blessed Mother Theotokos just as we are not confusing natures when it comes to the Icons of Christ.

Why? Because the Person is a Divine Person! Both before as well as after the Incarnation! Thus one Divine Person in two Natures.

You seem to be confusing Person and Nature. Before the Incarnation the Divine Person only had one Nature and that was the Divine Nature.

At the Incarnation the Divine Person added a second Nature, and so it is one Person in two Natures.

Alfred Persson,

If you were present when our Lord was born, would you be able to worship him? Would you be able to worship Him as an Infant?

Was doubting Thomas in error when he touched his flesh and said "My Lord and My God"? According to you he was....or must have been!

John 20:27-29"Then He said to Thomas, “Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.”And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Do you worship the Person or Just the Divine Nature only? Also, did God Incarnate die on the Cross?

You seem to be confusing Person and Nature.

ICXC NIKA

« Last Edit: August 03, 2010, 11:41:06 PM by jnorm888 »

Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

If this was CAF, his posts could be scrubbed clean, where they may never lead others astray, besides polluting the internet. But since OC.net doesn't do that sort a thing (a policy I support. Pure gold fears no fire), a word or too is appropriate.

Well, I think it's probably a little too late to avoid polluting the Internet.

Also, if you Google the OP's name you'll find that he's been polluting an awful lot of other religious boards/blogs/discussions besides this one, for a few years, so one more isn't going to make that much difference.

Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)

God expressly rules out any kind of male human icon as imaging His similitude.

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIKWN), the likeness of male or female,-LXX, Brenton

It says that the Israelites you could not use any form to represent God, who had not revealed himself to them in any form at that point. God did finally reveal Himself in Jesus Christ, who does have a form.

Quote

Therefore, all who image the flesh of Jesus, and insist this does not contradict De 4:15f, thereby deny 1)He is God;

It is not a denial that Jesus is God, only an affirmation that Jesus has a visible form.

Quote

2)The Word became male human flesh.

Depicting the Word as human flesh affirms that it was the Word that became flesh. If the Word had not become flesh, then it would be improper to depict Him as such, but He did so we do.

Quote

Moreover separating Transcendent Deity from His Flesh is Nestorianism. Both natures are united indivisibly in the One Person of the Eternal Son.

We depict the person, not the nature. The Second Person of the Trinity has a physical human body, so we depict Him with one.

Quote

One cannot image the male human flesh of Jesus without thereby rending Him from His infinitude

Icons use visual aspects to represent the person, not just their flesh.

Quote

and making Him like His creation.

The Second Person of the Trinity did become like His creation in the incarnation.

Quote

It is deducible from God's commanding images of cherubim overshadowing the Mercy seat, that the reason for the prohibition is the transcendence of God not be undermined.

God had not revealed himself to them in a visible form. That is why they could not use one to depict Him.

Quote

Therefore, any EIKONA of Jesus is violating not just the letter of Deu 4:15f, but also its spirit.

The spirit was that they could not depict God in a form that they did not know Him to exist in. We now know the Second Person of the Trinity to exist as a human person. That is why He is depicted as such.

Quote

Contrary to John D's citing the images of cherubs etc as collaborative proof, their existence does the opposite as God never commanded these be venerated, nor are God's people shown venerating them anywhere in scripture, except in two instances by the Patriarchs, and it is evident from the Law's prohibition of this, that God did not approve.

They were commanded to give the greatest amount of honor and respect to Ark of the Covenant. It was so holy that they could not so much as touch it out of respect. According to 1Kings 8:30, people were to pray towards the temple. In 1Chron 16:4, David commanded levites to miniter before the Ark. in verse 36 (LXX) or 37 (MT) depending on which translation you read, this was done continually.

Quote

He clearly "winked" at their error (Ac 17:30):

That verse was referring to the Athenians who made images of false gods out of ignorance of who the true God is. God was only willing to wink at their error of they were to repent from seving their false gods and serve Him upon hearing the truth, because after that they were no longer ignorant.

Quote

Abraham planted a grove

Gen 21:33 "Then Abraham planted a field at the Well of Oath, and there he called on the name of the Lord."-Orthodox Study Bible

Gen 18:16 Then Jacob awoke from his sleep and said, "The Lord is in this place, and I did not know it." Gen 18:17 So he was afraid and said "How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven."Gen 18:18 Now Jacob rose early in the morning, and took the stone he put at his head, set it up as a pillar, and poured oil on top of it.-Orthodox Study Bible

This veneration was not acceptable to God as He later forbade both in Deuteronomy 16:21f

Deut 16:21 You shall not plant for yourself any grove or any tree near the altar of the Lord your God which you build for yourself.Deut 16:22 You shall not set up a pillar the Lord your God hates.- Orthodox Study Bible.

The groves and pillars spoken of in Deut. were used by other nations for worshipping their false gods. God commanded these things not to be built because of the association these things had with false gods. Also at this point, they were to go to the tabernacle to make their sacrifices to God and nowhere else. This is about how and where it is acceptable to worship God at that time, not about how God can or cannot be depicted.

I get the feeling you're missing the starting point: you've attributed in your OP a seemingly very shallow and not-scripturally-well-defended position to St. John of Damascus, and then "refuted" it, going so far as to quote St. John's name in the title of the thread in order to demonstrate your mastery over his logic. And yet, judging by your argument, "proofs," and conclusions, you haven't actually read that much of St. John's work, and yet have taken the time to, in effect, smear him by claiming that he weakly espoused heresy in his support of iconography.

There are plenty of folks who will engage you on the Scriptural, patristic, conciliar, and traditional roots and proofs for the permissible existence of iconography in Christian worship, drawing on archeological evidence (the existence of iconography in Christian worship from the 1st century, and other Jewish iconographic depictions that pre-date that), scriptural and patristic evidence (the 7th Ecumenical Council liked using scripture, you know); however, your argument against St. John seems like a childish rant when you're not willing to read all of what he says on the matter, and insist on continuing a line of argumentation from a faulty starting point.

Back up your claims, with proof.

Calling me an idiot doesn't make it so.

In fact, this thread indicates quite the opposite.

But hope springs eternal (hence all the beauty salons in the land): someone may yet treat my argument, after they have tired insulting me.

I consider it all joy, in case you are wondering.

Back when I was in school.....a very long time ago, the professors knew who did and didn't do their homework! They knew who did and didn't put the time in to actually know the stuff they were talking about.

I remember times in where I was scared to ask a question in Calculus because I knew I didn't put in the work, and the teachers would always scold us whenever we asked a question or stated something.

They knew the stuff, while we didn't, and they were able to tell if one did the hard work by putting in the time or not.

But for some reason, you are not seeing this.

ICXC NIKA

Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

Were you ever at a point in your life where you did accept the theology of Icons? Just curious.

Quote

and haven't looked back at my former life wanting anything, these 30+ years Jesus has always been with me, never forsaking me. And He will do the same for you, but you must repent, and confess He is LORD in public, before the eyes of angels and men.

Icons do proclaim that Jesus is LORD. That's what the "OwN" you see in most icons means. It's the name of God given to Moses on Mt. Sainai in greek.

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIKWN), the likeness of male or female,-LXX, Brenton

It says that the Israelites you could not use any form to represent God, who had not revealed himself to them in any form at that point. God did finally reveal Himself in Jesus Christ, who does have a form.

Thanks for responding to the argument.

You argue the prohibition against male icons of God is because God never revealed Himself as a human male.

BUT if that is true, how is it God said they never saw His similitude, they certainly saw human males.

Therefore your exegesis is impossible.

Rather than permit the making of icons if God reveals His similitude, God stated a historical fact, "ye saw no similitude" and then prohibits any kind of icon of His similitude, including those imaging human flesh.

Therefore any icon of God's similitude contradicts Deu 4:15f.

So if an icon of Jesus body is made, that is a denial 1)He is God, or 2)came in human flesh.

The rest of what you say is germane only if you can refute the above, so until then, lets focus on Deut 4:15f.

« Last Edit: August 04, 2010, 12:16:35 AM by Alfred Persson »

Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)

Thank you for this. As a new convert, this is the clearest, most detailed explanation I have seen and I appreciated reading it. I'd understood the part about the incarnation and the ability to have icons because of that, but I hadn't seen this explanation based on the passage in Deuteronomy.

And Thankful don't let anyone fool you. Modern Protestantism, just like Byzantine iconoclasm, is nothing more than Platonic, neo-pagan humanism couched in Christian terminology. It was and is a lie about God and about man.

The kontakion (sermon-hymn) for the feast of the Triumph of Orthodoxy, commemorated on the first Sunday of Great Lent:

The indefinable Word of the Father made Himself definable, having taken flesh from you, O Mother of God, and having refashioned the soiled image of man to its former state, has suffused it with divine beauty. Confessing salvation, we proclaim it in deed and word.

From St John of Damascus' treatise On the Defense of the Holy Images (which Alfred Persson does not seem to have read and absorbed yet):

If we made an image of the invisible God, we would certainly be in error ... but we do not do anything of the kind; we do not err, in fact, if we make the image of God incarnate who appeared on earth in the flesh, who in His ineffable goodness, lived with men and assumed the nature, the volume, the form, and the colour of the flesh...

St John also responded to the arguments of those who regarded Old Testament prohibitions of religious imagery as also applying to the Church:

Since the invisible One became visible by taking on flesh, you can fashion the image of Him whom you saw. Since He who has neither body nor form nor quantity nor quality, who goes beyond all grandeur by the excellence of His nature, He, being of divine nature, took on the condition of a slave and reduced Himself to quantity and quality by clothing Himself in human features. Therefore, paint on wood and present for contemplation Him who desired to become visible.

And this, surely a masterpiece of brevity which yet contains a such great wealth of truth:

Of old God the incorporeal and uncircumscribed was not depicted at all. But now that God has appeared in the flesh and lived among men, I make an image of the God who can be seen. I do not worship matter but I worship the Creator of matter, who for my sake became material and deigned to dwell in matter, who through matter effected my salvation. I will not cease from venerating the matter through which my salvation has been effected.

To deny the place of iconography is to deny the very incarnation of God. This was the fatal flaw of the iconoclasts. Sadly, successive eras have repeatedly revived iconoclasm in various forms, as I mentioned in an earlier post. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:

This isn't talking about the Incarnation. This is talking about the Ancient Jews not seeing similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to them in Choreb on the mountain out of the midst of the fire.

Quote

16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIKWN), the likeness of male or female,-LXX, Brenton

This is talking about the ancient Jews before the Incarnation.

Quote

You argue the prohibition against male icons of God is because God never revealed Himself as a human male.

BUT if that is true, how is it God said they never saw His similitude, they certainly saw human males.

Of course they saw human males, but they never saw God as a human in the day in which He spoke to them in Choreb.

Similitude = visible likeness, image, a point of comparison......etc.

I'm sorry, but you're not making sense to me. The text seems to say that God didn't want them to make a human likeness of Him because they never saw Him.

And you keep ignoring most things that everyone is saying. You are starting to make this thread of yours pointless and fruitless.

Quote

Rather than permit the making of icons if God reveals His similitude, God stated a historical fact, "ye saw no similitude" and then prohibits any kind of icon of His similitude, including those imaging human flesh.

In the day in which He spoke to them in Choreb. That is the context. I don't know if you know this but Revelation is progressive. We see this throughout the Old Testament as well as how the New Testament reflects on the Old.

Quote

Therefore any icon of God's similitude contradicts Deu 4:15f.

You reason like a kid. It's obvious from the text itself that it is talking about "In the day in which He spoke to them in Choreb"

The context is not talking about the Incarnation for it didn't happen back then.

Quote

So if an icon of Jesus body is made, that is a denial 1)He is God, or 2)came in human flesh.

It's an affirmation that God became Incarnate!

But I'm sure you will ignore all this just like you do most posts! Stop setting up strawmen

ICXC NIKA

« Last Edit: August 04, 2010, 12:52:03 AM by jnorm888 »

Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIKWN), the likeness of male or female,-LXX, Brenton

It says that the Israelites you could not use any form to represent God, who had not revealed himself to them in any form at that point. God did finally reveal Himself in Jesus Christ, who does have a form.

Thanks for responding to the argument.

You argue the prohibition against male icons of God is because God never revealed Himself as a human male.

Not exactly. I argue against any image, because God had not revealed Himself as having any image. This would at that time include human males.

Quote

BUT if that is true, how is it God said they never saw His similitude, they certainly saw human males.

They did see human males, but God had not revealed Himself as one until the incarnation. They could not use what was not revealed to them.

Quote

Rather than permit the making of icons if God reveals His similitude, God stated a historical fact, "ye saw no similitude" and then prohibits any kind of icon of His similitude, including human flesh.

Because He had not yet revealed Himself as a man having human flesh.

Quote

Therefore any icon of God's similitude contradicts Deu 4:15f.

Only if it depicts a similitude of God that He has not revealed Himself as. They could not depict God as a human male because God had not revealed Himself to them as a human male. God has revealed Himself to us in the person of Jesus Christ, who is a human male, so we depict Him as such. The icon is of Christ, the person, not all of male humanity.

Quote

So if an icon of Jesus body is made, that is a denial He is God, or came in human flesh.

An icon is of a person, not just a nature, not just a body.

Quote

The rest of what you say is germane only if you can refute the above, so until then, lets focus on Deut 4:15f.

So let's focus on the above, that is if that really is the key to this discussion.

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:

This isn't talking about the Incarnation. This is talking about the Ancient Jews not seeing similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to them in Choreb on the mountain out of the midst of the fire.

If the incarnate body is not the "similitude of God" this verse is irrelevant to icons, which destroys the rational for making icons...that the incarnation made the similitude of God sensible and therefore can be imaged.

You can't have both as true, you must choose; either

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ

If you pick #1, then: the icon's prototype is not 1)God for the prohibition doesn't have an except if you seen it clause; 2)His similitude is not human flesh as it is expressly ruled out as an image of His similitude.

If you pick #2, then: John of Damascus' rational for making icons of God vanishes, the prohibition remains and you are all idolatrous.

Pick one.

« Last Edit: August 05, 2010, 04:49:22 PM by Fr. George »

Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:

This isn't talking about the Incarnation. This is talking about the Ancient Jews not seeing similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to them in Choreb on the mountain out of the midst of the fire.

If the incarnate body is not the "similitude of God" this verse is irrelevant to icons, which destroys the rational for making icons...that the incarnation made the similitude of God sensible and therefore can be imaged.

You can't have both as true, you must choose; either

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ

If you pick #1, then: the icon's prototype is not 1)God for the prohibition doesn't have an except if you seen it clause; 2)His similitude is not human flesh as it is expressly ruled out as an image of His similitude.

If you pick #2, then: John D's rational for making icons of God vanishes, the prohibition remains and you are all idolatrous.

Pick one.

What does "in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain" mean to you?

For that is the whole context of similitude in Deu 4:15

You can't take the issue of similitude outside of that context and in the way you are using it.

Quote

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

There is a difference in time. Why? Well, lets look at the passage again.

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:

When did the Incarnation happen? Did it happen in the day in which the Lord spoke to them in Choreb?

If no, then you have no argument!

Quote

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ

Revelation is progressive and therefore it is not a contradiction. I already showed you in where we(Christians) depicted things in the air, Earth, and water in where Exodus says no, I also showed in where God later allowed the Jews to make such depictions.

But you ignore all this! Just as you ignore the context of Scripture when it says "ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb"

The Incarnation happened AFTER that day in which the Lord Spoke to them in Choreb. Therefore it is ok to make Icons of God Incarnate.

And so the difference is time......Revelation is progressive!

ICXC NIKA

« Last Edit: August 04, 2010, 01:45:04 AM by jnorm888 »

Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:

This isn't talking about the Incarnation. This is talking about the Ancient Jews not seeing similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to them in Choreb on the mountain out of the midst of the fire.

If the incarnate body is not the "similitude of God" this verse is irrelevant to icons, which destroys the rational for making icons...that the incarnation made the similitude of God sensible and therefore can be imaged.

You can't have both as true, you must choose; either

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ

If you pick #1, then: the icon's prototype is not 1)God for the prohibition doesn't have an except if you seen it clause; 2)His similitude is not human flesh as it is expressly ruled out as an image of His similitude.

If you pick #2, then: John D's rational for making icons of God vanishes, the prohibition remains and you are all idolatrous.

Pick one.

What does "in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain" mean to you?

For that is the whole context of similitude in Deu 4:15

You can't take the issue of similitude outside of that context and in the way you are using it.

Quote

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

There is a difference in time. Why? Well, lets look at the passage again.

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:

When did the Incarnation happen? Did it happen in the day in which the Lord spoke to them in Choreb?

If no, then you have no argument!

Quote

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ

Revelation is progressive and therefore it is not a contradiction. I already showed you in where we(Christians) depicted things in the air, Earth, and water in where Exodus says no, I also showed in where God later allowed the Jews to make such depictions.

But you ignore all this!

ICXC NIKA

Its irrelevant how you understand that...what is material is your choice of these 2 possibilities:

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ

Pick one.

« Last Edit: August 04, 2010, 01:46:23 AM by Alfred Persson »

Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:

This isn't talking about the Incarnation. This is talking about the Ancient Jews not seeing similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to them in Choreb on the mountain out of the midst of the fire.

If the incarnate body is not the "similitude of God" this verse is irrelevant to icons, which destroys the rational for making icons...that the incarnation made the similitude of God sensible and therefore can be imaged.

You can't have both as true, you must choose; either

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ

If you pick #1, then: the icon's prototype is not 1)God for the prohibition doesn't have an except if you seen it clause; 2)His similitude is not human flesh as it is expressly ruled out as an image of His similitude.

If you pick #2, then: John D's rational for making icons of God vanishes, the prohibition remains and you are all idolatrous.

Pick one.

What does "in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain" mean to you?

For that is the whole context of similitude in Deu 4:15

You can't take the issue of similitude outside of that context and in the way you are using it.

Quote

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

There is a difference in time. Why? Well, lets look at the passage again.

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:

When did the Incarnation happen? Did it happen in the day in which the Lord spoke to them in Choreb?

If no, then you have no argument!

Quote

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ

Revelation is progressive and therefore it is not a contradiction. I already showed you in where we(Christians) depicted things in the air, Earth, and water in where Exodus says no, I also showed in where God later allowed the Jews to make such depictions.

But you ignore all this!

ICXC NIKA

Its irrelevant how you understand that...what is material is what does that cause you to chose:

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ

Pick one.

Its not irrelevant! And the fact that you think it is shows that you really don't care about truth! You made plenty of mistakes from your first post onward, and you refuse correction.

I also answered your two questions! If not most of your stuff.....in which you just keep ignoring!

ICXC NIKA

« Last Edit: August 04, 2010, 01:51:24 AM by jnorm888 »

Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:

This isn't talking about the Incarnation. This is talking about the Ancient Jews not seeing similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to them in Choreb on the mountain out of the midst of the fire.

If the incarnate body is not the "similitude of God" this verse is irrelevant to icons, which destroys the rational for making icons...that the incarnation made the similitude of God sensible and therefore can be imaged.

You can't have both as true, you must choose; either

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ

If you pick #1, then: the icon's prototype is not 1)God for the prohibition doesn't have an except if you seen it clause; 2)His similitude is not human flesh as it is expressly ruled out as an image of His similitude.

If you pick #2, then: John D's rational for making icons of God vanishes, the prohibition remains and you are all idolatrous.

Pick one.

What does "in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain" mean to you?

For that is the whole context of similitude in Deu 4:15

You can't take the issue of similitude outside of that context and in the way you are using it.

Quote

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

There is a difference in time. Why? Well, lets look at the passage again.

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:

When did the Incarnation happen? Did it happen in the day in which the Lord spoke to them in Choreb?

If no, then you have no argument!

Quote

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ

Revelation is progressive and therefore it is not a contradiction. I already showed you in where we(Christians) depicted things in the air, Earth, and water in where Exodus says no, I also showed in where God later allowed the Jews to make such depictions.

But you ignore all this!

ICXC NIKA

Its irrelevant how you understand that...what is material is what does that cause you to chose:

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ

Pick one.

Its not irrelevant! And the fact that you think it is shows that you really don't care about truth! You made plenty of mistakes from your first post onward, and you refuse correction.

ICXC NIKA

Prove its relevance...show how that destroys the need to pick one of these two possibilities:

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ

If you can't do that, you must pick one.

« Last Edit: August 04, 2010, 01:51:57 AM by Alfred Persson »

Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:

This isn't talking about the Incarnation. This is talking about the Ancient Jews not seeing similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to them in Choreb on the mountain out of the midst of the fire.

If the incarnate body is not the "similitude of God" this verse is irrelevant to icons, which destroys the rational for making icons...that the incarnation made the similitude of God sensible and therefore can be imaged.

You can't have both as true, you must choose; either

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ

If you pick #1, then: the icon's prototype is not 1)God for the prohibition doesn't have an except if you seen it clause; 2)His similitude is not human flesh as it is expressly ruled out as an image of His similitude.

If you pick #2, then: John D's rational for making icons of God vanishes, the prohibition remains and you are all idolatrous.

Pick one.

What does "in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain" mean to you?

For that is the whole context of similitude in Deu 4:15

You can't take the issue of similitude outside of that context and in the way you are using it.

Quote

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

There is a difference in time. Why? Well, lets look at the passage again.

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:

When did the Incarnation happen? Did it happen in the day in which the Lord spoke to them in Choreb?

If no, then you have no argument!

Quote

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ

Revelation is progressive and therefore it is not a contradiction. I already showed you in where we(Christians) depicted things in the air, Earth, and water in where Exodus says no, I also showed in where God later allowed the Jews to make such depictions.

But you ignore all this!

ICXC NIKA

Its irrelevant how you understand that...what is material is what does that cause you to chose:

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ

Pick one.

Its not irrelevant! And the fact that you think it is shows that you really don't care about truth! You made plenty of mistakes from your first post onward, and you refuse correction.

ICXC NIKA

Prove its relevance...show how that renders the need to pick one of the two possibilities, unnecessary:

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ

If you can't do that, you must pick one.

I already answered your two choices! Your choices are flawed because they ignore a vital context of the Scripture mentioned.

And this wasn't the first flaw you made on the thread.

ICXC NIKA

« Last Edit: August 04, 2010, 01:55:37 AM by jnorm888 »

Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:

This isn't talking about the Incarnation. This is talking about the Ancient Jews not seeing similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to them in Choreb on the mountain out of the midst of the fire.

If the incarnate body is not the "similitude of God" this verse is irrelevant to icons, which destroys the rational for making icons...that the incarnation made the similitude of God sensible and therefore can be imaged.

You can't have both as true, you must choose; either

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ

If you pick #1, then: the icon's prototype is not 1)God for the prohibition doesn't have an except if you seen it clause; 2)His similitude is not human flesh as it is expressly ruled out as an image of His similitude.

If you pick #2, then: John D's rational for making icons of God vanishes, the prohibition remains and you are all idolatrous.

Pick one.

What does "in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain" mean to you?

For that is the whole context of similitude in Deu 4:15

You can't take the issue of similitude outside of that context and in the way you are using it.

Quote

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

There is a difference in time. Why? Well, lets look at the passage again.

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:

When did the Incarnation happen? Did it happen in the day in which the Lord spoke to them in Choreb?

If no, then you have no argument!

Quote

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ

Revelation is progressive and therefore it is not a contradiction. I already showed you in where we(Christians) depicted things in the air, Earth, and water in where Exodus says no, I also showed in where God later allowed the Jews to make such depictions.

But you ignore all this!

ICXC NIKA

Its irrelevant how you understand that...what is material is what does that cause you to chose:

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ

Pick one.

Its not irrelevant! And the fact that you think it is shows that you really don't care about truth! You made plenty of mistakes from your first post onward, and you refuse correction.

ICXC NIKA

Prove its relevance...show how that renders the need to pick one of the two possibilities, unnecessary:

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ

If you can't do that, you must pick one.

I already did!

ICXC NIKA

That documents why you should focus, leave the prattle about me out, otherwise I might miss your point, buried in all the ad hominem.

Repeat your proof, I don't have time to reread the whole thread, Glen Beck is on soon.

Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:

This isn't talking about the Incarnation. This is talking about the Ancient Jews not seeing similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to them in Choreb on the mountain out of the midst of the fire.

If the incarnate body is not the "similitude of God" this verse is irrelevant to icons, which destroys the rational for making icons...that the incarnation made the similitude of God sensible and therefore can be imaged.

You can't have both as true, you must choose; either

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ

If you pick #1, then: the icon's prototype is not 1)God for the prohibition doesn't have an except if you seen it clause; 2)His similitude is not human flesh as it is expressly ruled out as an image of His similitude.

If you pick #2, then: John D's rational for making icons of God vanishes, the prohibition remains and you are all idolatrous.

Pick one.

What does "in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain" mean to you?

For that is the whole context of similitude in Deu 4:15

You can't take the issue of similitude outside of that context and in the way you are using it.

Quote

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

There is a difference in time. Why? Well, lets look at the passage again.

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:

When did the Incarnation happen? Did it happen in the day in which the Lord spoke to them in Choreb?

If no, then you have no argument!

Quote

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ

Revelation is progressive and therefore it is not a contradiction. I already showed you in where we(Christians) depicted things in the air, Earth, and water in where Exodus says no, I also showed in where God later allowed the Jews to make such depictions.

But you ignore all this!

ICXC NIKA

Its irrelevant how you understand that...what is material is what does that cause you to chose:

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ

Pick one.

Its not irrelevant! And the fact that you think it is shows that you really don't care about truth! You made plenty of mistakes from your first post onward, and you refuse correction.

ICXC NIKA

Prove its relevance...show how that renders the need to pick one of the two possibilities, unnecessary:

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ

If you can't do that, you must pick one.

I already did!

ICXC NIKA

That documents why you should focus, leave the prattle about me out, otherwise I might miss your point, buried in all the ad hominem.

Repeat your proof, I don't have time to reread the whole thread, Glen Beck is on soon.

Then re-read it after Glenn Beck is over!

ICXC NIKA

Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:

This isn't talking about the Incarnation. This is talking about the Ancient Jews not seeing similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to them in Choreb on the mountain out of the midst of the fire.

If the incarnate body is not the "similitude of God" this verse is irrelevant to icons, which destroys the rational for making icons...that the incarnation made the similitude of God sensible and therefore can be imaged.

You can't have both as true, you must choose; either

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ

If you pick #1, then: the icon's prototype is not 1)God for the prohibition doesn't have an except if you seen it clause; 2)His similitude is not human flesh as it is expressly ruled out as an image of His similitude.

If you pick #2, then: John D's rational for making icons of God vanishes, the prohibition remains and you are all idolatrous.

Pick one.

What does "in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain" mean to you?

For that is the whole context of similitude in Deu 4:15

You can't take the issue of similitude outside of that context and in the way you are using it.

Quote

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

There is a difference in time. Why? Well, lets look at the passage again.

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:

When did the Incarnation happen? Did it happen in the day in which the Lord spoke to them in Choreb?

If no, then you have no argument!

Quote

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ

Revelation is progressive and therefore it is not a contradiction. I already showed you in where we(Christians) depicted things in the air, Earth, and water in where Exodus says no, I also showed in where God later allowed the Jews to make such depictions.

But you ignore all this!

ICXC NIKA

Its irrelevant how you understand that...what is material is what does that cause you to chose:

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ

Pick one.

Its not irrelevant! And the fact that you think it is shows that you really don't care about truth! You made plenty of mistakes from your first post onward, and you refuse correction.

ICXC NIKA

Prove its relevance...show how that renders the need to pick one of the two possibilities, unnecessary:

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ

If you can't do that, you must pick one.

I already did!

ICXC NIKA

That documents why you should focus, leave the prattle about me out, otherwise I might miss your point, buried in all the ad hominem.

Repeat your proof, I don't have time to reread the whole thread, Glen Beck is on soon.

Then re-read it after Glenn Beck is over!

ICXC NIKA

I don't believe you had a point...you are evading you must choose:

1)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is the "incarnate body" of Christ

OR

2)the "similitude" in Deu 4:15 is NOT the "incarnate body" of Christ

I'll be back...

If any see realize how foolish icons are and desire Christ indwelling, do as the apostle Paul said:

8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. (Rom 10:8-11 KJV)

Repent and confess Christ in public, before the eyes of men and angel, and the LORD will hasten to you.

Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)

Deu 4:15 And take good heed to your hearts, for ye saw no similitude in the day in which the Lord spoke to you in Choreb in the mountain out of the midst of the fire:16 lest ye transgress, and make to yourselves a carved image, any kind of figure (EIKWN), the likeness of male or female,-LXX, Brenton

It says that the Israelites you could not use any form to represent God, who had not revealed himself to them in any form at that point. God did finally reveal Himself in Jesus Christ, who does have a form.

otherwise, we must apply the principle of qui tacet consentit, and accept your silence as an admission of defeat.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Alfread Pearson, you say that icons are Nestorian. Can you please answer yes or no to the following questions?

A photo is similar to a painting. Yes/no?Photos are taken using light sensitive sensors. Yes/no?Eyes are composed of light sensitive sensors. Yes/no?Looking at someone creates an image of the person they are beholding within their eyes. Yes/no?The first nestorian was Virgin Mary, because she looked at her own child. Yes/no?

If icons are nestorian then I claim that Virgin Mary was the first nestorian.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth